3 replies to this topic

[bensonby]

We all know that if someone is convicted and sent to gaol then their time on remand is deducted from their sentence; in some cases "time served" covers a whole sentence.

Thus the court aknowledges the fact that time served on remand counts as a punishment. With that in mind does anyone know how, or if, people that are aquitted are compensated if they spent a sinificant (or any) time on remand?

[pmtts]

. With that in mind does anyone know how, or if, people that are aquitted are compensated if they spent a sinificant (or any) time on remand?

I quote the Prison Reform Trust :

An acquitted defendant is not automatically entitled to compensation, and it has been the exception rather than the rule for any compensation to be payable.

[bensonby]

Thanks for that...

and so why is that? surely if someone has been held, although innocent, they should be recompensed: The judicial system recognises that time on remand is a punishment (as it sentences people to "time served" and so on) so surely it must recognise that people held and aquitted have been punished but have are not guilty in law.

[TCambs]

I don't think that logic follows. Whilst time served on remand can be deducted from a sentence, I don't think it necessarily follows that time on remand is there as a punishment. It is primarily there to allow the application of justice in cases where the defendants may abscond etc. There is obvious overlap with locking people up as a punishment and locking people up to allow the application of justice, and it is in that overlap that time served lies.

If it were the case you could compensation for being found not guilty having served time on remand, why not for time spent in a police cell after you'd been arrested?